ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEwABLE ENERGY ...
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technologies
for a Cleaner, More Secure Energy Future
October 2006
The Road to a New Energy Future
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technologies for a Cleaner,
More Secure Energy Future
Tony Dutzik
Alexios Monopolis
Timothy Telleen-Lawton
Rob Sargent
Anna Aurilio
MoPIRG Foundation
OCTOBER 2006
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Ken Bossong of the Sustainable Energy Network; Brian Siu of the Apollo Alliance;
Peter Gage of the Energy Future Coalition; and Nathanael Greene, Deron Lovaas and Ann Bordetsky of
Natural Resources Defense Council for their review of this report. The authors also thank Susan Rakov,
Elizabeth Ridlington and Travis Madsen of Frontier Group and Alison Cassady and Kate Johnson of
MoPIRG Foundation for their editorial assistance.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of those who
provided editorial review. Any factual errors are strictly the responsibility of the authors.
Copyright 2006, MoPIRG Foundation
For additional copies of this report, visit our website or send $20 to:
MoPIRG Foundation
310A N. Euclid
St. Louis, MO 63108
(314) 454-9560
www.mopirg.org
Cover photos: Norman Pogson/FOTOLIA (light bulb); Jean Schweitzer/FOTOLIA (wind farm);
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (subway); CalCars.org (plug-in hybrid); National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (all others).
2 Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 4
Introduction 7
Energy Efficiency Technologies 9
Energy Efficient Homes 9
Energy Efficiency in Business and Industry 12
Oil Saving Technologies 14
Transportation 14
Other Uses of Petroleum 17
Renewable Energy Technologies 20
Wind Energy 20
Solar Power 21
Biomass Energy 22
Geothermal Energy 22
The Role of Research and Development in Achieving a New Energy Future 25
The Benefits of Federal Clean Energy R&D 25
The Need for Increased Clean Energy R&D 26
R&D Is One Piece of a Larger Puzzle 28
Conclusion and Recommendations 29
Notes 30
The Road to a New Energy Future 3
Executive Summary
America can and must move away from our
dependence on oil and other fossil fuels and
toward a New Energy Future. We can do this by
tapping into our abundant supplies of clean,
renewable, home-grown energy sources and by
deploying our technological know-how to use
energy more efficiently.
Recognizing the promise of energy efficiency
and renewable energy to transform our economy,
a group of environmental, consumer, labor and
civic organizations have endorsed the New
Energy Future platform, which consists of the
following four goals: 1
• Reduce our dependence on oil by saving
one-third of the oil we use today by 2025 (7
million barrels per day). 2
• Harness clean, renewable, homegrown
energy sources like wind, solar and farmbased
biofuels for at least a quarter of all
energy needs by 2025. 3
• Save energy with high performance homes,
buildings and appliances so that by 2025
we use 10 percent less energy than we do
today.
• Invest in a New Energy Future by
committing $30 billion over the next 10
years to the New Energy for America
Initiative, thus tripling research and
development funding for the energy-saving
and renewable energy technologies we need
to achieve these goals. 4
In fall 2006, we released a white paper
describing a plausible scenario for achieving
those targets and estimating the benefits in terms
of fossil fuel savings that would result.
According to that analysis, America could
achieve major reductions in the use of all fossil
fuels by realizing the goals of the New Energy
Future platform. By 2025, America could:
• Save 10.8 million barrels of oil per day,
equal to four-fifths the amount of oil we
currently import from all other nations in
the world.
• Save 9.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
per year, nearly twice as much as is
currently used annually in all of America’s
homes and more than is currently used in
all of America’s industrial facilities.
• Save 900 million tons of coal per year, or
about 80 percent of all the coal we
consumed in the United States in 2005.
• Save 1.7 billion megawatt-hours of
electricity per year, 30 percent more than
was used in all the households in America
in 2005. 5
Fig. ES-1. Fossil Fuel and Electricity
Consumption Under the New Energy Future
Scenario 6
Energy Consumption (Quad BTU)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Total Energy
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Electricity
2006
2025 Business as
Usual
2025 New Energy
Future
Achieving these fossil fuel savings would help
solve many of America’s pressing energy
problems – ranging from dependence on foreign
oil to global warming – and would likely do so
while creating jobs and contributing to the longterm
stability of America’s economy.
This paper describes the technologies – many of
which exist today – that can enable America to
achieve the goals of the New Energy Future
platform.
Energy Efficiency Technologies
Numerous technologies exist to reduce energy
use in homes and businesses:
• Home weatherization – including air
sealing, insulation and window replacement
– can cut energy use for home heating by
20 to 30 percent.
• Efficient furnaces, like those meeting
federal Energy Star standards, can cut
energy use for heating by 20 percent
compared to today’s furnaces and by 40
percent compared to those 20 years old or
older.
• Solar and heat pump water heaters can
reduce energy use for water heating by half
to two-thirds, and more water-efficient
4 Executive Summary
clothes washers and dishwashers can
provide additional savings.
• Businesses can save energy, too. Wal-Mart,
for example, has already committed to
reducing its in-store energy use by 20
percent. And one recent analysis found that
the use of more efficient motors and
improved controls in the industrial, electric
and commercial sectors could reduce total
U.S. electricity demand by as much as 15 to
25 percent.
• New technologies and combinations of
technologies – such as those included in
zero-energy homes and low-energy
commercial buildings – could lead to even
more dramatic reductions in fossil fuel use
in homes, business and industry in the years
to come.
Oil Saving Technologies
America can significantly reduce its
consumption of oil by making cars go farther on
a gallon of gasoline, reducing the rate of growth
of vehicle travel, and using plant-based fuels to
substitute for some of the oil we use for
transportation.
• Fuel-efficient technologies like advanced
engines and transmissions and improved
electronics can improve the fuel economy
of today’s cars by 50 percent or more,
while hybrid-electric and other advanced
vehicles make a 45 miles per gallon fuel
economy standard feasible within the next
two decades. Similar improvements can be
made to the fuel economy of heavy-duty
trucks.
• High gasoline prices are already reducing
the growth of vehicle travel in the United
States, but expanding the range of
transportation choices – through expanded
transit and increased support for
carpooling, telecommuting, walking and
biking – could enable more Americans to
avoid high prices at the pump and
increasingly frustrating commutes.
• Production of plant-based fuels like ethanol
and biodiesel in the United States has more
than doubled over the last four years,
helping to reduce our dependence on
petroleum. New technologies that convert
plant residues and energy crops into
biofuels could make biofuels a more
promising alternative and allow us to
further reduce our use of oil in
transportation.
• New automotive technologies – like “plugin”
hybrids – are being developed that
could bring the dream of 100 MPG cars
within reach, or even eliminate the use of
oil in vehicles altogether.
Renewable Energy Technologies
America has access to immense renewable
energy resources from the sun, earth and crops
and from the movement of wind and water. The
technology to tap those resources is advancing
rapidly and is increasingly competitive in cost
with fossil fuel technologies.
• The wind blowing through the Great Plains
could generate enough electricity to power
the entire country. Wind power installations
in the United States have doubled over the
last four years, and wind power is among
the cheapest sources of new power
generation in some parts of the country.
• Solar energy could conceivably generate
more than enough electricity to power the
entire United States. The cost of solar
panels has declined dramatically in recent
years and solar power installations
worldwide nearly doubled between 2002
and 2004. Continued advances in solar
technology could bring solar power within
reach of more Americans within the next
several years.
• Plant-based sources of energy, called
“biomass,” already provide a substantial
amount of energy in America and can
provide even more. A federal advisory
group has set a target of having biomass
account for 5 percent of industrial and
electric generator energy use by 2020.
• Immense amounts of energy are contained
within the earth. Experts estimate that as
much as 100,000 megawatts of geothermal
power – equal to about 10 percent of
today’s electricity generation capacity –
could be economically viable in the United
States.
Improving today’s clean energy technologies
and developing tomorrow’s technologies
requires a substantial investment in federal
energy research and development.
• Federal investment in clean energy research
and development (R&D) has resulted in
many technological breakthroughs with big
dividends for America’s economy. A study
by the National Academy of Sciences
estimated that R&D breakthroughs in just
The Road to a New Energy Future 5
six energy efficiency technologies yielded
economic benefits of about $30 billion on
an R&D investment of about $400 million
– a return on investment of 75-to-1.
• Federal investment in energy research and
development has declined dramatically
from its peak during the energy crises of
the late 1970s and early 1980s. The United
States now spends less than half as much
on energy R&D programs in the public and
private sectors as it did in 1980. Clean
energy programs have faced continued
funding pressure in recent Bush
administration budget proposals.
• Increasing federal clean energy research
and development funding to $3 billion per
year – about triple today’s funding level –
over 10 years would enable researchers to
focus on several goals:
o Improving the performance and
economic competitiveness of existing
clean energy technologies.
o Redesigning our energy system to
remove existing hurdles to improved
energy efficiency and the integration of
renewable energy into our economy.
o Designing new energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies.
o Reducing the cost of producing clean
energy technologies and coordinating
“real world” demonstration of those
technologies.
o Addressing any social or environmental
impacts of clean energy technologies.
The United States should adopt the goals of
the New Energy Future platform and marshal
the political, economic and scientific resources
necessary to meet those goals.
Public policy changes can play an important role
in advancing the nation toward the goals of the
New Energy Future platform. The following
policies would represent a strong first step:
Energy Efficiency in Homes, Business and
Industry
• Set strong energy efficiency standards for
household and commercial appliances.
• Strengthen residential and commercial
building codes and ensure that they are
adequately enforced.
• Require utilities to meet growing energy
needs through energy efficiency
improvements before building new power
plants.
• Expand and invest in energy efficiency
programs to help homeowners and
businesses install the latest technologies in
their homes and businesses.
• Eliminate obstacles to the use of combined
heat and power (CHP), which would
dramatically improve opportunities for
industrial and commercial energy
efficiency.
Oil Savings
• Increase fuel economy standards for cars,
light trucks and SUVs to 45 miles per
gallon over the next decade-and-a-half and
set strong fuel economy standards for
heavy-duty trucks.
• Set goals for the use of plant-based fuels
like ethanol and biodiesel and enact
policies that ensure that those fuels are
developed cleanly and efficiently.
• Encourage the development and use of
advanced technology vehicles like “plugin”
hybrids that can achieve 100 miles per
gallon of gasoline or more.
• Invest in expanded and improved public
transit service, promote “smart growth”
practices that reduce the need for driving,
and encourage other transportation choices
like telecommuting, carpooling, biking and
walking.
Renewable Energy
• Enact a national renewable energy
standard, similar to those already in place
in 20 states, that would require a minimum
percentage of the nation’s electricity to
come from renewable sources.
• Increase research and development funding
to develop the next generation of renewable
energy technologies.
• Provide consistent, long-term tax incentives
for the installation of renewable energy
technologies.
• Require utilities to prioritize renewable
energy development over the construction
of conventional power plants to satisfy
electricity demand.
6 Executive Summary
Introduction
America is the most technologically and
economically advanced nation in the world,
blessed with vast natural and intellectual
resources. Our nation has a track record of
responding to major challenges and achieving
unthinkable goals. If any nation in the world is
capable of creating an energy system that can
fuel our economy while preserving our
environment and our long-term security, it is us.
But America’s energy situation today is less
secure than it has been in recent memory. Our
domestic production of oil peaked decades ago
and our production of natural gas may be
peaking now. As a result, we import more of our
energy than ever before, leaving our energy
supplies and national security vulnerable to
political instability abroad. We have ample
supplies of coal, but mining it causes severe
environmental damage and burning it releases
large amounts of global warming pollution.
Nuclear power has been tried and found wanting
for economic, environmental and public safety
reasons. And virtually every year, Americans
consume more energy in our cars, homes and
businesses.
For America to retain our economic vigor,
national security and environmental health, we
must build toward a New Energy Future – one
based on homegrown, environmentally friendly
energy sources and the sensible use of energy
throughout the economy.
We have the tools to achieve a better energy
future – in the technological prowess of
academia and industry, the cutting-edge public
policies now being pioneered in states across the
country, and in our vast reserves of energy from
the sun, wind and crops.
THE NEW ENERGY FUTURE PLATFORM
In order to achieve a New Energy Future, we
need to set ambitious goals for how we will
transform our economy to reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels, and then marshal the
political, economic and technological resources
to achieve those goals.
In 2006, a broad coalition of environmental,
consumer, labor and civic groups gave their
endorsement to a New Energy Future platform
that includes the following goals: 7
• Reduce our dependence on oil by saving
one-third of the oil we use today by 2025 (7
million barrels per day). 8
• Harness clean, renewable, homegrown
energy sources like wind, solar and farmbased
biofuels for at least a quarter of all
energy needs by 2025. 9
• Save energy with high performance homes,
buildings and appliances so that by 2025
we use 10 percent less energy than we do
today.
• Invest in a New Energy Future by
committing $30 billion over the next 10
years to the New Energy for America
Initiative, thus tripling research and
development funding for the energy-saving
and renewable energy technologies we need
to achieve these goals. 10
In fall 2006, we issued a white paper entitled A
New Energy Future: The Benefits of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy for Cutting
America’s Use of Fossil Fuels. The paper found
that, under one plausible technological pathway
for meeting the goals of the New Energy Future
platform, the United States could, by 2025:
• Save 10.8 million barrels of oil per day,
equal to four-fifths the amount of oil we
currently import from all other nations in
the world.
• Save 9.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
per year, nearly twice as much as is
currently used annually in all of America’s
homes.
• Save 900 million tons of coal per year, or
about 80 percent of all the coal we
consumed in the United States in 2005.
• Save 1.7 billion megawatt-hours of
electricity per year, 30 percent more than
was used in all the households in America
in 2005. 11
Such reductions in fossil fuel consumption
would address many of the energy-related
challenges facing the United States today,
including our exposure to high and volatile
prices for fuels like oil and natural gas, our
dependence on foreign nations for crucial energy
supplies, and our emissions of pollutants that
cause global warming, which threatens to have
dramatic impacts on America’s environment,
economy and public health.
The Road to a New Energy Future 7
ABOUT THIS PAPER
This paper is a companion to the September
2006 white paper. In this paper, we describe
many of the technologies that can help America
to achieve the New Energy Future goals.
A review of these technologies leads to the
conclusion that America already has most of the
tools we need to achieve the targets of the New
Energy Future platform. Energy efficiency
technologies exist that can dramatically reduce
the amount of energy we use in our homes,
businesses, industries and vehicles. And
renewable energy technologies like wind
turbines, solar panels and plant-based fuels like
ethanol are experiencing spectacular rates of
growth, both in the United States and worldwide.
The next steps are to develop and implement
public policies that can put these clean energy
tools in the hands of individuals and businesses,
and to continue to push forward on research and
development of a new generation of clean energy
technologies.
The potential for America to achieve a New
Energy Future is real. The need to do so is great.
And the time we have to make the transition is
short. The clean energy technologies highlighted
in this paper – combined with new technologies
that we can develop through a focused,
sustained, well-supported research and
development effort – give us an opportunity to
break, once and for all, America’s dependence
on fossil fuels and put our nation on a more
secure energy footing for generations to come.
It is time to take advantage of that opportunity.
8 Introduction
Energy Efficiency
Technologies
Improving the energy efficiency of America’s
economy is the cheapest and quickest way to
reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Vast
“strategic reserves” of energy efficiency exist
within America’s homes, businesses and
industrial facilities – reserves that we can largely
tap using technologies available today.
Energy Efficient Homes
From top to bottom, America’s homes hold great
potential for improvements in energy efficiency.
SPACE HEATING
Space heating is the largest source of energy
consumption in homes, accounting for nearly
half of residential energy use. 12 Despite dramatic
improvements to the energy efficiency of the
average American home since the energy crises
of the 1970s, large opportunities remain to
reduce energy consumption for space heating.
There are multiple ways to reduce energy
consumption for space heating in American
households. Improved insulation, high-efficiency
windows and weather-stripping can reduce the
amount of heat that escapes from a home during
cold weather. And high-efficiency furnaces and
boilers can ensure that less fossil fuel is wasted
in the production of heat for homes.
Home weatherization measures, like proper
insulation, can shave home heating fuel use by as
much as 30 percent.
Credit: DOE/NREL, Karen Doherty
Most American homes – both new and existing –
can be heated far more efficiently. For three
decades, for instance, the federal government has
been providing grants to state agencies that help
low-income households improve their energy
efficiency through the Weatherization Assistance
Program. A recent evaluation of the program in
19 states found that the program reduced natural
gas consumption for space heating in affected
homes by approximately 32 percent. In addition,
the program provided societal benefits about 2.5
times as great as the program’s cost. 13
A variety of technologies can make existing
homes more energy efficient:
• Air sealing, insulation and window
replacements can reduce energy
consumption by 20 percent. 14
• High-efficiency residential furnaces, such
as those meeting the federal government’s
Energy Star standards, can reduce fuel use
by about 20 percent compared to furnaces
meeting the government’s minimum
furnace efficiency standard, and by 40
percent or more compared to older
furnaces. 15 Considering that about onequarter
of all homes have furnaces that are
20 years old or older, the opportunity for
energy savings is large. 16 The federal
government recently missed an opportunity
to strengthen energy efficiency standards
for natural gas furnaces, despite the
availability of technologies that can provide
a significant boost to furnace efficiency. 17
Similar opportunities exist for new homes. Many
new homes across the country are not built to
modern energy efficiency standards. For
example, 16 states currently have building
energy codes that date to 1998 or prior, despite
significant increases in the strength of building
energy codes since then. 18 Moreover,
enforcement of building energy codes is often
lax; a 2001 study estimated that less than half of
new homes in one state fully complied with the
state’s building energy code. 19 Simply adopting
the most recent and most stringent building
energy codes and improving enforcement could
lead to dramatic savings of energy in new homes.
The Alliance to Save Energy, for example,
estimates that building energy codes for
residential and commercial buildings could save
0.85 quadrillion BTU (quads) of energy annually
by 2020 – or about 2 percent of the total energy
consumed in homes and businesses in 2005. 20
The Road to a New Energy Future 9
But requiring new residential construction to
meet current energy codes is just the tip of the
iceberg for the energy savings that can be
achieved in new homes. New homes meeting
federal Energy Star energy efficiency standards
provide energy savings of at least 15 percent
compared with the most recent (and most
stringent) residential model building code. 21 And
builders in parts of the country are now
constructing “zero-energy homes” in which
fossil fuel purchases are virtually zero. (See “The
Next Wave: Zero-Energy Homes” below.)
AIR CONDITIONING
Air conditioning accounts for 16 percent of
residential electricity consumption. 22 New
federal standards for residential and commercial
air conditioners will improve efficiency for new
units by 30 percent and 26 percent,
respectively. 23 However, air conditioners
currently exist that exceed the new federal
standard by 15 percent or more. Moreover,
simple changes in building design and
appropriate weatherization can reduce the need
for air conditioning. For example, light colored
“cool roofs” that reflect rather than absorb the
sun’s heat have been shown to reduce cooling
energy use by approximately 40 percent. 24
WATER HEATING
Water heating accounts for about 17 percent of
household energy use. 25 As with other sources of
household energy demand, significant energy
savings are possible from switching from less
energy efficient to more energy efficient
equipment. In addition, some technologies that
save water – such as front-loading clothes
washers – can also reduce demand for hot water
and reduce fossil fuel use.
Even greater savings are possible by using
technologies that tap renewable energy sources
to assist in water heating. Heat pump water
heaters, for example, use less than half as much
electricity as traditional electric water heaters. 26
And solar water heaters, which use roof-mounted
solar collectors to heat household water, can
reduce energy consumption for water heating by
about two-thirds and pay for themselves within
four to eight years. 27
APPLIANCES
American homes are full of energy-consuming
appliances – the vast majority of which can be
made dramatically more energy efficient.
If every American installed compact fluorescent light
bulbs like these, we could cut our total household
lighting bill in half.
Credit: DOE/NREL, D&R Int. LTD
The biggest energy-consuming appliance in most
American homes is the refrigerator, which
consumes 14 percent of residential electricity. 28
Federal efficiency standards for refrigerators
have resulted in vast improvements in energy
efficiency; the average refrigerator sold today
uses one-third the electricity as the average unit
from 1974, despite an increase in average size
and performance. 29 Still, significant energy
savings are possible by replacing older
refrigerators with newer models. Refrigerators
meeting Energy Star efficiency standards, for
example, are 10 to 15 percent more efficient than
average models. 30
Similar gains are possible with other appliances
– including appliances that are on the cutting
edge of technology, like DVD players and other
digital media. For example, many electrical
appliances, including televisions, cable set-top
boxes and stereos consume power even when
they are turned off. One study of 10 California
homes found that consumption of standby or
“vampire” power accounted for between 5 and
26 percent of the homes’ annual electricity use. 31
Replacing existing appliances with those that
minimize standby power use could reduce these
losses by 68 percent. 32
LIGHTING
Compact fluorescent light bulbs are becoming
increasingly common in American homes and
are vastly more efficient than traditional
incandescent bulbs. Lighting accounts for about
9 percent of household electricity consumption. 33
If every American household replaced its most
highly used incandescent bulbs with compact
10 Energy Efficiency Technologies
fluorescents, America’s total household lighting
consumption could be cut in half. 34
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As shown above, there are many opportunities to
reduce energy consumption in American homes.
Aggressive weatherization of homes, combined
with installation of high-efficiency furnaces,
could reduce energy consumption for space
heating by 20 to 40 percent or more. Similar
energy savings are available for energy used in
water heating, lighting, air conditioning, and
many appliances.
Could all of these improvements, put together,
lead to a 10 percent reduction in home energy
use within the next two decades? The experience
of California suggests they can.
California has long been a leader in energy
efficiency. It was the first state to adopt energy
efficiency standards for home appliances, has the
nation’s most stringent building energy codes,
and has long had well-funded, aggressive
programs for promoting energy efficiency. While
homes have become more efficient across the
U.S., California has truly excelled. On a percapita
basis, the U.S. used 16 percent less energy
in homes in 2002 than it did in 1975. But in
California, residential energy use declined by
more than 40 percent per capita between the
mid-1970s and 2002. 35 (See Fig. 1.)
If the United States had achieved the same percapita
percentage reduction in residential energy
This Colorado home looks typical, but it holds a
secret – it is a zero net energy home built by the
Department of Energy for Habitat for Humanity. The
home uses solar panels and a solar hot water system
to produce as much energy as it consumes.
Credit: DOE/NREL, Paul Norton
use between 1975 and 2002 as California did, the
nation would have consumed over 3 quadrillion
BTU less energy in 2002. Moreover, residential
energy consumption in the U.S. would have been
17 percent lower in absolute terms than it was in
1975, rather than 12 percent higher. 36
Fig. 1. Per-Capita Residential Energy
Consumption, U.S. versus California
Annual Residential Net Energy Use
(million BTU/person)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
Year
US Per capita
CA Per capita
The California experience, coupled with the
availability of a wide variety of energy efficiency
technologies for American homes, suggests that
the goal of reducing home energy use by 10
percent within the next two decades is reachable,
if we adopt an aggressive set of public policies
that ensure that energy efficient technologies
find their way into more American homes. This
level of savings could happen using technologies
that exist today – not including the likely
development of new energy efficient
technologies that could transform the way
American homes use energy.
THE NEXT WAVE: ZERO-ENERGY HOMES
“Zero-energy” homes are those that are able to
produce about as much energy as they use. Zeroenergy
homes typically combine an array of
energy-saving technologies with small-scale
renewable energy production. For example, the
U.S. Department of Energy worked with Habitat
for Humanity to design and build several nearzero-energy
homes in Tennessee. The buildings
combine an airtight building envelope with
energy-efficient windows, a geothermal heat
pump, solar panels and energy-efficient
appliances. Costs for building the homes were
around $100,000 and daily expenditures for
purchased energy were about $1 per day. 37 A
similar model home was built in Colorado. Near-
The Road to a New Energy Future 11
zero-energy homes are becoming increasingly
common in California and have the potential to
dramatically reduce all forms of residential
energy consumption.
Energy Efficiency in Business
and Industry
Just as there is tremendous potential for
improvements in the energy efficiency of
American homes, so too is there great potential
for energy savings in business and industry.
Commercial buildings like shopping centers, big
box stores, office buildings and institutional
buildings (like schools and hospitals) are major
consumers of energy, accounting for about 18
percent of total energy use in the United States. 38
Many of the same strategies that are available for
reducing residential energy use also apply – on a
much larger scale – to commercial buildings. For
example, comprehensive energy efficient
retrofits for commercial buildings can achieve
energy savings on the order of 11 to 26 percent. 39
To give some idea of the potential, Wal-Mart,
the nation’s largest private electricity user,
recently pledged to reduce energy consumption
at its stores by 20 percent and has committed to
developing a prototype store that curbs energy
consumption by 25 to 30 percent. 40
Lighting and air conditioning equipment used in
commercial buildings can be made far more
energy efficient. State-of-the-art lighting systems
in commercial establishments have the potential
to reduce energy consumption for lighting by up
to 40 percent nationally. 41 As mentioned above,
new federal standards for air conditioners will
lead to dramatic improvements in energy
efficiency, and air conditioners are already on
the market that surpass those energy efficiency
standards.
In addition, there are many opportunities for
commercial facilities to use energy more
intelligently. Variable-speed motors, automated
lighting and climate controls, and even the
simple act of turning off lights at the end of the
workday can save large amounts of energy. For
example, Adobe Corporation implemented a
series of energy efficiency measures at its San
Jose, California headquarters – including
installation of variable-speed motors and highefficiency
lighting systems, and adjusting
lighting and climate controls to the actual needs
of the building. Over the past six years, as a
result of the measures, Adobe has reduced peremployee
electricity use at its headquarters by 35
percent and natural gas use by 41 percent. 42
Combined heat-and-power (CHP) technologies
represent yet another opportunity for energy
savings in both commercial buildings and
industrial facilities. Many large apartment
buildings, commercial developments and
industrial facilities could make greater use of
CHP, in which heat produced to warm buildings
or power industrial processes is also used to
generate electricity. CHP systems can reach 70
to 90 percent thermal efficiency, compared to the
33 percent efficiency of today’s power plants. 43
Software maker Adobe launched an aggressive effort
to improve the energy efficiency of its San Jose
headquarters, cutting per-employee electricity use by
35 percent. Credit: Proehl Studios® April 2006
Many industrial facilities already use CHP, but
the potential for growth is enormous. Studies
conducted for the U.S. Department of Energy
found a market potential of 33,000 megawatts
for industrial CHP systems (compared to current
deployment of 11,000 megawatts), and as much
as 77,000 megawatts in the commercial and
institutional sector (compared to deployment of
5,000 megawatts as of 1999). 44 Building out this
existing CHP potential would equal about 10
percent of America’s current electric generation
capacity, and technological improvements could
allow CHP technologies to spread even farther in
the years to come. 45
Industrial facilities can also achieve much
greater energy efficiency. In addition to
increasing the use of combined heat and power,
other measures that could save large amounts of
energy include the following:
• Advanced Motors – The use of highefficiency
motors and better controls in the
12 Energy Efficiency Technologies
industrial, electricity generation and
commercial sectors could reduce total U.S.
electricity demand by as much as 15 to 25
percent. 46
• Efficient Boilers – Industrial boilers
produce steam and hot water for
manufacturing processes. Significant
improvements in efficiency – on the order
of 15 to 19 percent – are possible for oil
and natural gas boilers. 47
• Recycling – Much of the oil used by
industry is not consumed for energy
purposes, but as feedstocks for products
like plastics and asphalt. Consumption of
petroleum for feedstocks can be reduced by
more aggressive recycling to replace the
use of virgin materials in these products.
The Rocky Mountain Institute, for example,
estimates that, if the United States
increased its rate of plastics recycling to
that of Germany, the use of petroleum
feedstocks used in manufacturing could be
cut by 12 percent. 48
• Thermal Efficiency – Factories can
achieve dramatic improvements in
efficiency through techniques that seek to
maximize the efficiency of the industrial
process as a whole, rather than just the
component parts. Using a technique called
“pinch analysis,” engineers can estimate the
minimum amount of energy theoretically
required at a given facility and make
adjustments to processes in order to
maximize energy efficiency. Such analyses
can reduce energy costs by as much as 40
percent. 49
The potential for cutting-edge technology and
smart thinking to dramatically reduce energy
consumption in buildings and industry is
epitomized by the current drive in the American
architecture community to encourage “green
building” techniques.
THE NEXT WAVE: GREEN BUILDINGS
Interest in “green buildings” has mushroomed in
recent years among companies and government
agencies seeking to improve their environmental
performance. Green building certification
programs such as Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) have come to be
seen as an important symbol of an organization’s
environmental commitment. The number of
LEED-certified buildings nationwide
approximately doubled in 2005. 50
Now, a group of architects is working to ensure
that all new commercial buildings meet exacting
energy efficiency criteria. The American
Institute of Architects has set a goal of reducing
fossil fuel use in the construction and operation
of new buildings by 50 percent by 2010, with
additional 10 percent reductions in fossil fuel use
every five years beyond then. 51 Similar
transformative potential may also be possible in
industry by reconsidering product design,
product flows and industrial facility design in
order to reduce the use of feedstocks and
minimize energy waste.
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Just as is the case with residential buildings,
there are a wide variety of technologies available
to reduce energy use in businesses and industry.
But in some key ways, commercial and industrial
buildings may hold greater opportunities for
efficiency improvements through the application
of professional management and analytical
techniques to reduce energy waste that may be
hurting a company’s bottom line. Many
businesses have saved large amounts of energy
by undertaking a thorough analysis of how
energy is used in their facilities and applying
appropriate technologies and practices to
minimize energy consumption.
The Road to a New Energy Future 13
Oil Saving Technologies
The United States is by far the largest consumer
of oil in the world, consuming more than 20
million barrels a day. America could reduce its
consumption of oil by half that amount over the
next 20 years using a range of strategies and
technologies to use oil more efficiently and to
find renewable products to do the jobs in our
economy that oil does today.
Nearly two thirds of the oil we use each year
powers cars, trucks, airplanes and other forms of
transportation. Another quarter is used in
industry, with oil use in the residential,
commercial and electricity sectors accounting for
about 9 percent. 52 There are various ways to curb
oil consumption in each of these areas of
America’s economy.
Transportation
There are three ways to cut oil consumption from
transportation – make vehicles go farther on a
gallon of fuel, reduce the rapid rate of growth in
the number of miles Americans drive, and use
renewable fuels to replace some of the oil we
currently use for transportation.
FUEL ECONOMY
Between 1975 and 1988, the fuel economy of
new passenger cars in America nearly doubled
—from 13.4 miles per gallon (MPG) in 1975 to
24.4 MPG in 1988. 53 Similarly, light trucks
experienced an increase in real-world fuel
economy from 11.6 MPG in 1975 to 18.4 MPG
in 1987. 54 The reason: the imposition of federal
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis.
By the late 1980s, CAFE standards were saving
America millions of barrels of oil per year. But
since the late 1980s, automakers and the federal
government have taken their eye off the ball,
allowing CAFE standards to stagnate and
flooding the market with large, low-mileage
SUVs. As a consequence, the average new lightduty
vehicle sold in 2005 had worse fuel
economy than the average vehicle sold in 1982,
despite rapid advances in automotive technology
over that time period. 55 The failure to maintain
momentum toward more fuel-efficient cars
represents a tremendous missed opportunity for
energy savings that has left us more vulnerable
to volatile oil prices and disruption of key oil
supplies from abroad.
Over the last several years, many analysts –
ranging from environmental advocates to the
National Academy of Sciences – have identified
dozens of technologies that exist today or will be
available soon that can significantly boost the
fuel economy of vehicles.
Among them:
• Efficient engines, using technologies like
variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation
(in which engine cylinders are shut off
when not needed, such as at highway
cruising speeds), turbocharging, and the use
of improved lubricants.
• Efficient transmissions, including 5- and
6-speed automatic transmissions and
continuously variable transmissions.
• Improved aerodynamics and reduced
rolling resistance to reduce the amount of
energy lost to friction with the air and the
road.
• Enhanced electronics, such as 42-volt
electrical systems and integrated starter
generators that allow the engine to be shut
off when the vehicle is stopped. 56
None of these technologies are new or exotic.
Indeed, many have been installed in limited
numbers in passenger cars sold by major
manufacturers, and the potential they hold for
fuel economy gains is significant. An analysis by
the Union of Concerned Scientists based on a
2002 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
study found that the technologies evaluated by
the NAS could raise average vehicle fuel
economy to 37 miles per gallon (from 24 miles
per gallon today) at a net financial benefit to
consumers, and do it by 2017. 57
Indeed, it is likely that we can go much farther.
The NAS report did not include the hybridelectric
vehicle technology that has become
increasingly common on America’s roads, nor
did it include lightweight, high-strength
materials that can safeguard passenger safety
while reducing vehicle weight and improving
fuel economy. 58 Hybrid technology, in particular,
holds great promise for driving future gains in
fuel economy. The best hybrids – like the Toyota
Prius, Toyota Camry hybrid, Honda Civic hybrid
and Ford Escape hybrid – can increase fuel
economy by 40 to 80 percent. 59 And more
American consumers are demanding them –
14 Oil Saving Technologies
sales of hybrid vehicles have increased
dramatically each year since they were
introduced to the United States in 2000. Hybrid
vehicle sales in 2006 are on track to surpass last
year’s record of 205,000 vehicles and more
hybrid models are coming soon. 60
By fully adopting the fuel economy technologies
available today and encouraging greater
deployment of hybrid vehicles, the United States
could achieve an average fuel economy standard
of 45 MPG within the next decade and a half. 61
As we will discuss below, such an improvement
represents only a fraction of what could be
achieved by advanced new technologies now
being researched by automakers and others.
Similar improvements are possible for the fuel
economy of the heavy-duty trucks that carry
freight on America’s highways. Unlike cars and
SUVs, tractor-trailers are not currently subject to
any federal fuel economy standards. But like
those vehicles, the fuel economy of tractortrailers
has been on the decline for the last
decade. 62
Manufacturers have the technology to make
tractor-trailers far more efficient than they are
today, using tools like advanced electronics,
better aerodynamics and transmission and engine
improvements. The American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy estimates that heavyduty
trucks could be made to be 58 percent more
energy efficient than today’s models – and that
the investment in more efficient vehicles would
be more than paid for by the savings in fuel costs
over time. 63
VEHICLE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
EFFICIENCY
Improving the fuel economy of our cars, trucks
and other forms of transportation is an important
step for reducing oil consumption. But if we are
going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,
we also need to reduce the dramatic rate of
growth in vehicle travel. There are many ways to
achieve that goal and to enhance the overall
efficiency of our transportation system.
Americans are driving more miles in our cars
and SUVs than ever before. In 1980, for
example, the average American driver drove a
car or light truck about 6,200 miles per year. By
2004, the average American was driving nearly
50 percent more miles per year. 64 And, if we
continue on our current, business-as-usual path,
the average American will be driving 2,000 more
miles per year in 2025 than he or she does
today. 65 To save large amounts of oil versus
business as usual projections, Americans simply
need to not drive more than we do today
(acknowledging that vehicle travel will continue
to increase somewhat due to population growth).
Many Americans are already looking for
alternatives to daily commutes that have grown
increasingly expensive due to high gas prices and
increasingly frustrating due to mounting
congestion. Indeed, higher gasoline prices have
already led many Americans to cut down on
driving when they can and to use alternatives
where they are available. In 2005, the number of
vehicle-miles traveled nationwide increased by
approximately 0.1 percent, the slowest rate of
increase since 1980. 66 And, from January
through July 2006, the number of vehicle-miles
traveled had also increased by a scant 0.1 percent
over a similar period in 2005. 67
But those reductions in the growth of vehicle
travel have come in the face of huge increases in
gasoline prices, demonstrating that, for many
Americans, alternatives to driving are few.
Expanding the range of transportation choices
available to Americans means retooling our
communities to provide options other than using
a car and investing in efforts to promote transit,
telecommuting, carpooling, biking, walking and
other alternatives.
Achieving reductions in the growth of vehicle
travel is certainly possible. Indeed, there are
many American metropolitan areas whose
residents drive significantly less than the national
average. Based on 2003 data from the Texas
Expanded and improved public transportation can
provide Americans with alternatives to increasingly
costly and frustrating commutes. Credit:
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
The Road to a New Energy Future 15
Transportation Institute, vehicles traveled less
than 7,500 miles per year on average in the
Chicago, Sacramento, Philadelphia, Buffalo and
New York metropolitan areas for every resident
of those areas. By contrast, more than 12,000
miles were traveled per resident in the Orlando,
Atlanta and Birmingham, Alabama metro
areas. 68
There are many reasons why residents of one
metropolitan area may drive less than residents
of another, but two factors that are almost
certainly at play are the availability of efficient,
high-quality transit service and the existence of
development patterns that enable residents to
take advantage of transit and other transportation
alternatives. For example, in the Birmingham,
Alabama metropolitan area in 2003, 479 miles
were traveled in cars for every passenger-mile
traveled via transit. In New Orleans, that ratio
was 37-to-1; in Portland it was 26-to-1; and in
New York it was 6-to-1. 69
But transit doesn’t just work in older,
concentrated central cities like New York. It is
also proving to be an effective transportation
choice in cities that aren’t normally seen as
havens for transit – places like Dallas, Denver
and Salt Lake City. Each of these cities has built
or added to light rail transit networks over the
past decade and a half, experiencing surprisingly
high passenger counts. 70 And as prices at the
pump have increased, riders have flocked to
transit in cities across the country. Ridership on
Los Angeles’ light rail transit lines increased by
12 percent in the first half of 2006 alone.
Ridership also increased by 6 percent in Dallas, 6
percent in St. Louis, 3 percent in Portland and 2
percent in Denver. 71 In addition, a variety of
cities – most notably Portland, Oregon – have
paired expansion of transit service with “transitoriented
development” that orients new
residential and commercial development around
transit stops.
One major roadblock to building a 21 st century
transit system capable of providing Americans
with more transportation choices has been the
lack of adequate and reliable funding. In 2004,
for example, all levels of government – federal,
state and local – invested a combined $150
billion taxpayer dollars on highway
improvement, maintenance and operation. 72 By
contrast, investment in transit by all levels of
government in 2004 amounted to only $26
billion. 73
But while a major investment in transit and
improved land-use policies and practices will be
needed to provide Americans with more
transportation choices, there is also much that
can be done with little expenditure of money.
Government and employers can help Americans
maximize their transportation choices by
encouraging carpooling, telecommuting, walking
and biking, among other alternatives.
High gasoline prices have already caused the
growth in vehicle travel to slow nearly to a halt
in 2005 and so far in 2006. Preventing future
growth in vehicle travel over the long term,
however, will require a conscious, well-funded
effort to create more transportation choices for
Americans hungry for alternatives to higher gas
prices and frustrating commutes, as well as
sensible changes in how we organize our
communities. With such efforts, it is reasonable
to assume that the United States could hold the
growth in vehicle travel to the rate of population
growth over the next two decades.
Transit-oriented developments, like this one in
Portland, Oregon, are designed to make it easier for
residents to walk, bike and use transit to complete their
daily activities.
Reducing growth in car and light truck travel is
just one way America can make its transportation
system more efficient. Moving freight by rail, for
example, takes only one-tenth of the energy of
moving freight by truck, yet some sections of the
country have freight rail networks that have
inadequate capacity or are outmoded. 74
Similarly, public investment in airports has
helped fuel a large increase in air travel
nationwide over the past couple of decades. Yet,
America’s passenger rail network – which has
the potential to carry intercity passengers more
efficiently than air travel (and, with high-speed
rail, about as quickly in some travel corridors) –
has been allowed to atrophy. Creating a balanced
16 Oil Saving Technologies
transportation system will also require
investments in rail as well as in improvements in
connections to allow the seamless transfer of
people and freight among various travel modes.
PLANT-BASED FUELS
The final aspect of cutting oil consumption is to
find other fuels and materials to do the jobs in
our economy that oil does today. One way to do
so is to use plant-based fuels like ethanol and
biodiesel to replace some of the oil we currently
use in cars and trucks. Plant-based fuels and
products will likely never replace petroleum
entirely – at least not unless we cut our
petroleum use way back from current levels. But
they can be part of the solution, particularly if
they are produced in ways that use as little fossil
energy as possible and are protective of the
environment.
Not all “biofuels” are alike. Today, most of our
ethanol comes from corn, which is fairly energyintensive
to grow and process into biofuels.
(Although even corn ethanol uses less oil to
produce than it provides in useful fuel, according
to most studies.) 75 Many experts believe that we
will reap the greatest energy-saving potential
from biofuels from specially grown “energy
crops” like switchgrass and from plant residues.
At the moment, however, the technology for
processing energy crops and plant residues into
biofuels is in the early stages of development.
There is reason to believe that biofuels can come
to play a significant role in replacing a
significant share of transportation fuels in the
foreseeable future:
• The domestic ethanol industry has grown
dramatically in the last half decade,
producing more than twice as much ethanol
in 2005 as was produced in 2001. 76 And
that growth is expected to continue – plans
for new and expanded plants will increase
the nation’s ethanol production capacity by
60 percent. 77
• While most of today’s ethanol is being
produced from corn, scientists continue to
make progress toward development of
cellulosic ethanol from plant residues and
energy crops. Recently, Honda and a
research institute in Japan announced what
they term a breakthrough in the production
of cellulosic ethanol, along with plans to
build a “biorefinery” based on the process
that will produce both ethanol and other
products. 78 A group of academics and nonprofit
experts projects that the United States
could produce as much as 13 billion gallons
of cellulosic ethanol per year by 2025. 79
• Significant potential exists for plant-based
biodiesel as well. U.S. production of
biodiesel tripled between 2004 and 2005 to
75 million gallons. 80 And the U.S.
Department of Energy estimates that
America could produce 10 billion gallons
of biodiesel each year by 2030. 81
America will need to exert caution in expanding
its production and use of plant-based fuels like
ethanol and biodiesel. If produced inefficiently
or without care for the environment, plant-based
fuels can provide few environmental or energy
benefits, and the harm could exceed any benefits.
But plant-based fuels have great potential to
reduce oil consumption for transportation and are
an important part of an overall strategy to curb
America’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Other Uses of Petroleum
Transportation
consumes most of
the petroleum
America uses each
year, but other
sectors of the
economy –
particularly
industry – consume
significant amounts
of oil as well. As
noted earlier, most
petroleum
consumed in
industry is used to
make products, not
power machinery.
In addition to
savings available
through energy
efficiency and
recycling, the
potential exists to
use plant-based
products to replace
some of the oil used
in industry.
Plant-based fuels like ethanol
and biodiesel could someday
replace a significant share of
the oil we use for
transportation. Credit:
Charles Bensinger
The Road to a New Energy Future 17
Plant-based materials can be used as substitutes
for petroleum-based materials in the manufacture
of chemicals, plastics and other products.
Cellulose or starch from wood, cotton, corn or
other crops can be converted into biodegradable
polymers that can be used as substitutes for
plastics in a variety of products. 82 Similarly,
plant sugars can be used to create a variety of
chemicals. 83 One of the most interesting
proposals for the use of biomass is the design
and creation of “biorefineries” in which plantbased
materials are distilled into a variety of
products, including fuel and product feedstocks,
at one integrated facility. 84 The Biomass
Research & Development Technical Advisory
Committee, which advises the U.S. government
on biomass issues, has set a target of obtaining
18 percent of America’s chemicals from
biobased materials by 2020 and 25 percent by
2030. 85
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Slashing our consumption of oil is challenging,
but it is doable. Indeed, America has already
done it once before.
In 1977, the United States consumed 18.8
million barrels of oil per day – then an all-time
high. By 1983, America had reduced its oil
consumption to 15.2 million barrels per day, a
reduction of nearly 20 percent in just six years. 86
Not until 1998 would America consume as much
oil as it did in 1977.
Many of the tools used to achieve those savings
are available to us today – higher fuel economy
standards and improvements in energy efficiency
among them. But new, advanced technologies in
vehicles and plant-based fuels give us
opportunities to reduce oil consumption in ways
that didn’t exist in the late 1970s and early
1980s. By combining those tools, America can
save more than one-third of the oil it consumes
today by 2025 – dramatically reducing our
dependence on foreign nations for petroleum
supplies. 87
THE NEXT WAVE: ADVANCED VEHICLES
New vehicle technologies – including “plug-in”
hybrids and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles – have
the potential to further transform the way we fuel
our cars and trucks.
Plug-in hybrids are like conventional hybrids
such as the Toyota Prius, but with one key
difference: they contain larger batteries that are
partially charged with electricity from the power
grid. A recent study found that a plug-in hybrid
capable of traveling on electricity alone for 20
miles could reduce gasoline consumption by 30
percent compared to today’s hybrids. A plug-in
with 60 miles of all-electric range could reduce
gasoline consumption by two-thirds – bringing
the 100 mile-per-gallon car within sight. 88 No
automakers are currently making plug-in
hybrids, but several are investigating the
technology. And while battery technology will
need to improve, and price to come down, before
plug-in hybrids gain wide acceptance, the
technology holds great potential to reduce
petroleum use in transportation.
Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles use hydrogen as part
of an electrochemical reaction that produces
electricity that can be used to power a vehicle.
Hydrogen can be produced in a variety of ways,
including through the use of renewable energy.
Technology for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles has
been slow in developing – and fuel cell vehicles
may not come to wide-scale commercialization
for another decade or two – but several major
automakers are committed to the technology and
have placed demonstration vehicles in service.
Honda, for example, has committed to begin
limited marketing of its FCX fuel cell vehicle in
Japan and the United States in 2008, while
General Motors is planning to place 100 fuel-cell
SUVs with customers in the fall of 2007. 89
Plug-in hybrids and fuel-cell vehicles require
energy to produce electricity or hydrogen fuel.
Fully maximizing the benefits of plug-in hybrids
The socket on the bumper of this plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle allows the user to recharge the vehicle’s battery
using power from the electric grid, reducing the need
for gasoline. Credit: DOE/NREL, Keith Wipke.
18 Oil Saving Technologies
and fuel-cell vehicles will require generating as
much of that energy as possible from renewable
energy sources. Using electricity from coal-fired
power plants to fuel plug-in hybrids, for
example, would generate far fewer benefits in
terms of fossil fuel consumption or pollutant
emissions than generating that electricity from
clean renewable sources.
In addition, it is possible to combine several
technologies to achieve even greater reductions
in fossil fuel use. For example, one could use
plant-based fuels in a plug-in hybrid to reduce
petroleum use in cars to a bare minimum. Using
such vehicles in an improved transportation
system that minimizes the need to drive could
result in dramatically reduced oil consumption in
vehicles.
Plug-in hybrids, fuel-cell vehicles and other
advanced vehicles may not be able to make a
sizable contribution next year or before the end
of this decade. But they are potentially
“disruptive” technologies that can reduce, or
even break, America’s dependence on oil for
transportation.
The Road to a New Energy Future 19
Renewable Energy
Technologies
America has virtually unlimited potential for the
generation of power from the wind, sun and
other natural forces. Recent advances in
technology make renewable energy an
increasingly affordable and attractive resource
for providing America’s energy needs.
Using renewable energy to satisfy one-quarter of
America’s energy needs by 2025 is an aggressive
“reach goal” that will require the United States to
identify and marshal resources to tap into the
nation’s vast potential for energy from natural
forces. Many renewable resources can help us
get there.
Wind Energy
The wind that blows through America’s Great
Plains could theoretically generate enough
electricity to power the entire country. 90
America’s offshore areas could support wind
turbines nearly equal in capacity to all the power
plants operating in the country today. 91 And
other parts of the country, particularly the
Northeast, the Appalachian and Rocky
Mountains, and the Pacific coast also have
access to strong, consistent winds.
The cost of wind turbines has declined by
approximately 90 percent over the past two
decades and the technology itself has improved
to the point where wind power is now costcompetitive
with fossil fuel electricity generation
in certain parts of the country. 92 The result has
Wind power is becoming an increasingly costeffective
means of generating electricity across the
United States. Credit: DOE/NREL, Tennessee Valley
Authority.
been a boom in wind power development – both
in the United States and around the world. Wind
power installations in the United States just
passed the 10,000 megawatt mark, representing a
doubling in U.S. wind power capacity in just
four years. 93 But other nations have been adding
wind power capacity at a faster clip than
America. At the end of 2005, Germany had twice
the amount of installed wind capacity as the
United States, while Spain doubled its wind
power capacity within just three years. 94
Worldwide, there is now nearly 60,000
megawatts of wind power capacity, with twothirds
of it in Europe. 95 (See Fig. 2.)
Fig. 2. Cumulative Installed Wind Power
Generating Capacity 96
Cumulative Wind Power Capacity (MW)
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Rest of World
India
Spain
Germany
Denmark
USA
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
More wind power projects are in the pipeline. An
additional 6,000 megawatts of wind power
projects were in the planning process across the
country as of August 2006, according to the
American Wind Energy Association, although
not all of these proposed projects will end up
being built. 97
But America’s current wind energy capacity
merely scratches the surface on wind’s ultimate
potential. A recent study conducted for the U.S.
Department of Energy found that, with strong
and consistent public policy support, the United
States could build as much as 480,000
megawatts of wind energy capacity by 2025,
equal to about half of America’s current electric
generating capacity. 98 And that’s not counting
the vast wind resource off America’s shores.
An electricity system that generates large
amounts of power from the wind will require
some changes from our current fossil fuel-based
20 Renewable Energy Technologies
system. Investments in transmission lines will
need to be focused on bringing wind power from
where it is available to where it is needed. The
electric grid will need to balance wind power
with other forms of generation so as to account
for the intermittency of wind resources. And of
course, wind power projects will need to be sited
and operated in ways that have minimal impacts
on the environment and wildlife. But the
experiences of nations like Denmark, Germany
and Spain – which obtain significant shares of
their overall electricity generation from wind
power – demonstrate that it is possible to shift 20
percent or more of the nation’s power generation
to wind without adverse affects on the reliability
of the electricity system. 99
Solar Power
Like the energy of the wind, the energy
contained in sunlight striking the United States is
more than sufficient to provide for all of
America’s electricity needs. The potential for
electricity from solar in the United States is
huge; covering a square of Nevada desert 100
miles on a side with solar panels could produce
enough electricity for the entire United States. 100
Of course, no one is proposing that we cover
much of Nevada with solar panels – part of the
beauty of solar power is that it can be installed
on rooftops, garages and other locations, and
there are many parts of the United States with
adequate sunlight to support solar power.
As with wind power, the price of solar panels
and collectors has declined dramatically – with
the price of a photovoltaic (PV) system declining
at an average rate of about 4 percent per year
over the last 15 years. 101 Solar power remains
more expensive than other sources of energy and
prices have increased slightly in the past year
due to a shortage of high-grade silicon. But the
solar power industry believes that with enhanced
economies of scale and technological advances,
the price of solar photovoltaic power can be cut
in half by 2030, with total solar PV installations
reaching 200,000 megawatts. 102
In addition to reducing demand for fossil fuel
and nuclear power generation, solar PV provides
additional economic value by lessening strain on
the electricity grid. As a form of “distributed
generation,” solar PV reduces demand on the
transmission grid by producing power close to
where it is used. And because solar PV tends to
generate the most power on hot, sunny days
when electricity is in greatest demand, it reduces
the need for expensive additions to the electric
system to meet peak demand.
A variety of technologies exist that tap the
energy of the sun, including:
• Traditional, silicon-based PV systems,
which have come down in price and seen
significant improvements in efficiency over
the past two decades.
• Thin-film PV systems, which use
technology similar to that in solar
calculators and have the potential to
eventually be produced more cheaply than
traditional PV systems, since they are less
reliant on high-grade silicon. But they
require technological advances to increase
their efficiency at turning sunlight into
energy.
• Concentrating solar power plants, which
use mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiving
fluid, which is then used to power a
generator or engine to produce electricity.
Experimental concentrating solar power
plants were built as early as the 1980s, but
the technology is now drawing renewed
interest from utilities in the Southwest,
which have committed to more than 1,000
megawatts of new concentrating solar
power capacity in just the last year. 103
• Solar water heating systems that use the
sun’s energy to provide hot water for home
or business use.
Solar photovoltaic panels have come down in price
over the last several decades and are increasingly
prized for their ability to provide power when and
where it is needed most. Credit: DOE/NREL, Warren
Gretz.
The Road to a New Energy Future 21
Like wind power, solar power installations have
increased dramatically around the world in
recent years. The amount of solar PV capacity
installed worldwide nearly doubled between
2002 and 2004. The United States, which was
once the unquestioned leader in solar power
installations, now trails Japan and Germany in
total PV installations. 104 (See Fig. 3.)
Fig. 3. Cumulative Installed Solar
Photovoltaic Generating Capacity 105
Cumulative Installed Solar PV Capacity
(kW)
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
Other*
Japan
Germany
USA
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
* “Other” includes other members of the International Energy Agency’s
Photovoltaic Power System Program.
Several U.S. states have begun to move
aggressively to support solar power. The state of
California, for example, recently launched an
incentive program designed to bring 3,000
megawatts of distributed solar power on line
within the next 11 years, while New Jersey is
targeting 1,500 megawatts of solar power by
2020. 106
A strong push to develop solar energy in the
United States that couples aggressive public
policy initiatives with research and development
assistance could create economies of scale
sufficient to bring the price of solar power to the
“break even” point in the foreseeable future –
thus making it possible for Americans to get a
large share of their power from the sun.
Biomass Energy
Plants are efficient harvesters of solar energy and
provide a large potential energy source for the
United States. Biomass already supplies about 3
percent of the nation’s energy, largely through
the consumption of wood and wood waste. 107
Biomass can be obtained from a variety of
sources – from crop residues to dedicated energy
crops. In addition, methane captured as a result
of the decomposition of landfill waste and
animal manure can also produce biologically
based energy.
As with other renewable resources, care must be
taken in the development of biomass resources in
order to ensure that harvesting of biomass does
not create or encourage environmentally
destructive practices and that the goal of using
biomass for energy does not crowd out
cultivation of crops needed to feed growing
populations. We may also need to make choices
about the best use of biomass – whether it is to
replace fuel for automobiles or to provide power
or products for industry. Even with these
constraints, there is great potential for America
to use biomass to reduce its dependence on fossil
fuels.
The Biomass Technical Advisory Committee,
which advises the U.S. Department of Energy on
biomass issues, has set a series of targets for
biomass development, including having biomass
account for 5 percent of industrial and electric
generator energy use and 10 percent of
transportation energy use by 2020. 108
Geothermal Energy
The earth itself provides a renewable source of
energy through natural heat and hot water
contained deep within the earth in some parts of
the country and through the consistent
temperature of the ground near the earth’s
surface across seasons in all parts of the United
States.
Geothermal energy from deep underground
sources of hot water has been used to generate
electric power for decades, particularly in the
Southwest. Unlike other renewable sources of
energy, geothermal energy produces consistent,
baseload power 24 hours a day. Utilities in the
western United States have recently begun to
ramp up their interest in geothermal resources,
with plans for an additional 200 megawatts or
more of geothermal capacity on the drawing
board or under construction. 109
New “enhanced geothermal” technology, in
which water is injected into the ground where it
is turned into steam through contact with hot
rock, has the potential to expand the geographic
range of geothermal power. Some estimate that
as much as 100,000 megawatts of enhanced
geothermal energy could be economically viable
in the United States. 110
22 Renewable Energy Technologies
Across the country there is great potential to take
advantage of the naturally consistent
temperatures near the earth’s surface using
geothermal heat pumps. At a distance of 10 to 12
feet below the earth’s surface, temperatures
generally remain about 55 degrees. 111
Geothermal heat pumps use the disparity
between the consistent temperature of the earth
and hot or cold air temperatures to reduce the
need for fossil fuels to provide space heat or
cooling to buildings. More than 1 million
geothermal heat pumps are currently in use in the
United States, but much of the market remains
untapped. 112
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
The term “renewable energy” includes a wide
variety of resources that can perform a variety of
functions within America’s economy – providing
heat and light for our homes, fuel for our cars,
energy for industry, and clean sources of
electricity. Over the past two decades, several
renewable technologies – most notably wind
power – have become increasingly costcompetitive
with fossil fuels, and continued
technological advances and increasing
economies of scale should lead to further price
reductions in the years ahead.
The review of renewable technologies above
demonstrates that the amount of energy available
from the sun, wind, crops and earth is enough to
power much, if not all, of America’s economy.
Harnessing and making use of that energy,
however, is not a simple matter. America’s
economy and our infrastructure were built
around fossil fuels. Transitioning to an economy
that takes advantage of renewable energy will
require us to reorganize our systems for
producing, delivering and using energy. And that
will require a strong commitment to the task.
Given the uncertainty surrounding some
renewable energy technologies, it is difficult to
forecast the precise recipe of renewable
resources that can lead America to obtain 25
percent of its energy from renewables by 2025.
But the options are many, and the technologies
to capture that energy exist and are advancing
quickly in their sophistication and economic
competitiveness. With a firm goal driving the
development of renewable resources and a strong
public policy commitment, there is little reason
to think that a 25 percent target for renewable
energy could not be achieved.
THE NEXT WAVE: ENERGY FROM THE OCEAN
Since colonial days, America has tapped the
power of moving water to power our economy.
In those days, mills located alongside streams
and rivers used the power of water to operate
machinery. Hydroelectric dams, while
environmentally problematic, are now the
number two source of renewable energy in the
country, just behind biomass. 113
But there is a large source of moving water that
has not yet been effectively tapped for energy:
the ocean. The amount of energy available is
immense; the power of waves breaking on the
world’s coastlines has been estimated at 2 to 3
million megawatts, and further energy is
available from the regular movement of tides. 114
New technologies finally offer the potential to
harness energy from waves and tides, potentially
providing an important energy source for coastal
cities.
A variety of technologies are available for
tapping wave energy, from devices that look like
floating corks and noodles to structures built into
the shoreline that use wave motion to generate
electricity. 115 Prototype wave energy devices
have been tested off the coasts of Hawaii and
New Jersey, and one company has proposed a
wave energy project off the coast of Oregon that
could eventually be scaled up to produce 50
megawatts of power. 116
Tidal energy, on the other hand, is captured
through the use of underwater turbines similar to
wind turbines. A proposal to install several
Turbines like the ones in the diagram above could be
used to harness the power of tidal energy. Credit:
Marine Current Turbines.
The Road to a New Energy Future 23
turbines in the East River of New York City
could come to fruition soon, eventually resulting
in the generation of 10 megawatts of power. 117
At least 11 other tidal projects nationwide have
been conditionally approved and more than 20
others are under consideration. 118
Wave and tidal energy are relatively new
technologies and need to be fully evaluated for
their environmental impacts. But they represent
yet another promising source of additional
renewable energy.
24 Renewable Energy Technologies
The Role of Research and
Development in Achieving
a New Energy Future
In the 1970s, as Americans scrambled to react to
rising energy prices, the federal government
responded in a number of ways. One of those
responses was to dramatically ramp up
investment in federal energy research and
development programs.
The research and development efforts of the
1970s are still benefiting Americans today every
time we plug in a highly efficient refrigerator or
install energy-efficient windows in our homes.
But as energy prices declined in the 1980s, the
United States slashed spending on energy
research and development programs. One is left
to wonder what clean energy technologies might
be in the pipeline today if our investment in
clean energy research and development had
continued.
the market. 119 And there is no guarantee that an
investment in research in a particular technology
will ever “pay off” in a marketable product.
Nonetheless, federal energy R&D activities have
played an integral role in bringing several
cutting-edge clean energy technologies to
market. For example, federal spending on just
six energy efficiency technologies – advanced
refrigeration compressors, electronic ballasts for
fluorescent lamps, low-e glass for windows,
advanced lost-foam casting, oxygen-fueled glass
furnaces, and advanced turbines – has yielded
about $30 billion in economic benefits on an
R&D investment of about $400 million – a
return on investment of 75 to 1. Those six
technologies have saved approximately 5
quadrillion BTUs of energy, equivalent to about
5 percent of America’s annual energy use. 120
Energy-saving refrigerators and concentrating
solar power plants are two examples of how
strategic federal spending on R&D can yield big
benefits.
With more energy challenges facing America
today, we cannot afford to make the mistake of
short-changing efforts to discover and develop
the next wave of clean energy technologies.
Instead, we should dramatically ramp up our
investment in research efforts to reduce our
consumption of energy and increase our ability
to tap into America’s vast renewable energy
resources. That investment should be geared
toward meeting the specific goals for energy
efficiency improvements, oil savings and
renewable energy development contained in the
New Energy Future platform.
The United States should commit to a goal of
investing $30 billion over a 10-year period in
energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D
programs. Although this investment would
represent only a small fraction of the total federal
budget, it would go a long way toward securing a
new, sustainable energy future for America.
The Benefits of Federal Clean
Energy R&D
Research and development is a long-term
process with no guarantee of success. It can take
20 to 30 years between the commencement of
basic research on a technology and its arrival on
Concentrating solar power technologies, like this
dish-engine system, have made great advances
thanks to federal research and development efforts.
Credit: DOE/NREL, Stirling Energy Systems.
The modern refrigerator represents one of the
most remarkable achievements in the field of
energy efficiency. Today’s refrigerators use
approximately two-thirds less electricity than
those built in 1974, even though today’s models
are, on average, bigger, have more features, and
do not include ozone-depleting substances.
The Road to a New Energy Future 25
While many institutions were involved in that
achievement, the Department of Energy’s (DOE)
research and development efforts played a
critical role, starting with the 1977 launch of a
program to improve the energy efficiency of
appliances. The DOE’s initial investment of
$775,000 helped demonstrate the feasibility of a
full-featured refrigerator using 60 percent less
electricity than comparable conventional units
and produced new computer tools for analyzing
the energy-use implications of refrigerator design
options. DOE’s research and development
program and partnerships also played a key role
in allowing industry to phase out ozonedepleting
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
without an energy penalty. Lastly, DOE funded
R&D by a leading compressor manufacturer to
improve compressor efficiency. The resulting,
more efficient compressors were responsible for
about half of the refrigerator efficiency
improvement during the 1980s. 121
Federal investment in concentrating solar power
(CSP) hasn’t yet yielded the kind of substantial
economic benefits delivered by the refrigerator
program, but it is an example of how investment
in a novel technology can create benefits decades
down the road.
CSP technologies use mirrors to concentrate the
sun’s energy to produce electric power with
conventional turbines or heat engines. CSP was
conceived of as a means to harness the sun’s
energy to provide large-scale, domestically
secure, and environmentally friendly electricity.
In the aftermath of the energy shortages of the
1970s, federal R&D programs rapidly advanced
the technology, leading to early commercial
implementation of CSP in the mid-1980s. As
energy prices declined during the 1980s,
commercial interest in CSP waned, but research
and development efforts did not stop – making
incremental advances in system performance,
reliability and cost over time. 122 As a result, the
cost per kilowatt-hour of CSP was cut by twothirds
and the industry has a goal of cutting costs
in half again by 2015. 123
These advances have brought CSP to the brink of
wide-scale commercialization, with utilities in
the Southwest committing to more than 1,000
megawatts of new concentrating solar power
capacity in just the last year. 124 Researchers at
Sandia National Laboratory believe that
additions of up to 20,000 megawatts of new CSP
capacity could come on line by 2020. 125
The Need for Increased Clean
Energy R&D
Despite this legacy of success, funding for
energy research and development has stagnated
in recent years. After reaching a high point of $8
billion in 1980, the United States now spends, on
average, less than half that amount (only $3
billion per year) on all energy R&D programs in
both the public and private sectors. 126
Federal spending on renewable energy research
and development peaked in fiscal year 1979 at
$1.4 billion (in 2003 dollars). By fiscal year
1990, the renewables R&D budget had been
slashed by nearly 90 percent. Although funding
for renewables R&D rebounded to more than
$400 million in fiscal year 2003, we still spend
only about one-third as much money on
renewable energy research as we did in the late
1970s. 127 Federal funding for energy efficiency
R&D followed a similar path, with funding
slashed by about two-thirds during the 1980s. In
fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated $584
million for energy efficiency R&D, 15 percent
less than was spent in fiscal year 1980. 128
Clean energy R&D programs continue to face
relentless budget pressure. The fiscal year 2007
federal budget adopted by the House of
Representatives in May includes increased
spending for research funding into hydrogen
fuel, biomass and solar power. But it also
includes dramatic reductions in research for
geothermal energy, advanced materials for
vehicles, and small-scale hydroelectric power.
The budget also eliminates the Department of
Energy’s building codes program. 129
Perhaps no recent event drew more attention to
the low level of priority given to clean energy
research than the 2005 decision by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory to fire 32
employees, including eight researchers, in order
to fill a $28 million budget gap. 130 The
employees were eventually reinstated, but the
idea that researchers working on alternative
energy supplies could be let go in the midst of a
nationwide energy crunch symbolized the
inadequate and tenuous funding currently
provided to clean energy research and
development.
26 The Role of Research and Development
The current federal investment in clean energy
technologies is a pittance compared to the
nation’s overall spending on fossil fuels – or the
multi-billion dollar payoff that could result from
the development of a new cutting-edge clean
energy technology.
The time has come to make a large and sustained
commitment to development of the next
generation of clean energy technologies by
committing $30 billion over 10 years to research
and development efforts to advance energy
efficiency and renewable energy. The research
and development effort should be focused on
achieving the goals of the New Energy Future
platform. While many areas of technology could
benefit from an infusion of research and
development funding, the following areas could
be fruitful topics for study:
• Technology refinement and
improvement – Renewable energy
technologies like wind and solar power
have made tremendous advances over the
past few decades, but there is still much
room for improvement. For example, as
mentioned above, thin-film solar
photovoltaic systems have the potential to
be produced more cheaply than traditional
crystalline silicon systems, but currently do
not achieve similar efficiency in converting
sunlight to electricity. We already know
how to make ethanol from corn, but need to
develop and improve technologies for
converting energy crops and plant residues
to fuels. Federal R&D efforts have already
helped increase the efficiency of thin-film
PV systems and are beginning to make
inroads on the production of ethanol from
new sources, and further efforts could result
in additional improvements. Many other
renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies – from geothermal energy to
wind energy, and from efficient appliances
to efficient vehicles – could benefit from
similar incremental improvements.
• Technology integration – Clean energy
technologies don’t exist in a vacuum.
Rather, they must gain a foothold within a
marketplace that is currently geared toward
the use of fossil fuels. The difficulty of the
transition from idea to market is
exemplified by the challenges faced by
alternative fuel vehicles, which face a
classic “chicken-and-egg” problem: no one
will buy a vehicle that can’t be refueled, yet
no investor will build a fueling station if
there are no vehicles to use it. Thus,
research and development efforts also need
to be focused on the technologies that make
it possible for America’s economy to
accommodate clean energy resources. For
alternative fuel vehicles, that might mean
conducting research that will improve the
storage and delivery of hydrogen fuel or
ethanol. For renewable sources of
electricity, it might mean conducting
research into ways to store energy
generated from wind turbines or to
seamlessly integrate solar photovoltaic
panels into the electric grid. And for energy
efficiency technologies, it might involve
research into ways to deliver the same or
better functionality in equipment or
appliances that use far less energy.
• Production – High production costs can
hamper the economic competitiveness of
clean energy technologies. Research and
development can focus on helping
industries produce those technologies more
cost-effectively, and developing ways to
make the quantum leap from small-scale
production of those technologies to mass
production.
• Demonstration and deployment – Once a
promising technology has been developed
in the laboratory, it is important to test out
how the product works in the “real world,”
to fix problems that are identified in those
tests, and to identify effective strategies for
the deployment of the technology in the
marketplace. Federal R&D efforts can also
play an important role in identifying likely
markets for clean energy technologies and
developing effective strategies for entering
those markets.
• Mitigating environmental and social
impacts – All energy producing
technologies have some impact on the
environment and society. Some of those
impacts are well understood at the time the
technologies are developed and others
become apparent only after they are in use.
Federal research and development
programs should include efforts to identify
and mitigate those impacts, so that the
The Road to a New Energy Future 27
transition to a clean energy economy
produces the maximum benefits for society.
• New technologies – No one would suggest
that we have identified or begun to tap all
of the many possible sources of renewable
energy or energy efficiency that exist in
America. One of the most important roles
of research and development is to follow up
on promising leads for brand-new
technologies, such as the wave and tidal
energy technologies mentioned earlier in
this paper. Investment in these untried
technologies is risky and will yield as many
failures as successes. But as the example of
concentrating solar power demonstrates,
early investment in a promising new
technology can provide benefits years or
decades down the road.
economy, the effort was not matched with any
accountability mechanisms or regulatory drivers,
such as more stringent federal fuel economy
standards, that would have ensured that those
technologies actually found their way into
vehicles. Ironically, federal spending on PNGV
may have actually hurt American automakers by
stimulating their Japanese competitors, Honda
and Toyota, to ramp up their own research into
the development of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Those efforts culminated with the 1997
introduction by Toyota of the world’s first massmarket
hybrid-electric vehicle in Japan and the
later introduction of hybrids to the U.S. market
in 2000. 131 American automakers have been
playing catch-up with their Japanese counterparts
ever since.
R&D Is One Piece of a Larger
Puzzle
Adequate funding for research and development
is a necessary element of achieving a New
Energy Future. But it is not sufficient. The
federal research and development effort
described here must be focused on specific goals
for reducing dependence on fossil fuels and be
supported by aggressive public policies that
ensure that the energy-saving products developed
in the laboratory find their way into America’s
economy.
Research and development must work hand in
hand with public policies such as strong energy
efficiency standards. For example, the advances
in refrigerator energy efficiency described above
were made possible by technological
breakthroughs by DOE and industry researchers.
Those advances, in turn, made it possible for
California, and later the federal government, to
impose aggressive energy efficiency standards
for refrigerators. It was those standards – and not
the original research and development effort –
that ensured that more energy efficient
refrigerators eventually found their way into
American homes.
The opposite circumstance occurred in the 1990s
with regard to federal efforts, in partnership with
American automakers, to develop a prototype 80
mile-per-gallon car. While the Partnership for a
New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) did result
in technological improvements that improve fuel
28 The Role of Research and Development
Conclusion and
Recommendations
There are a wide variety of technologies that can
enable the United States to achieve the goals of
the New Energy Future platform. And America
should invest in developing more and better
clean energy technologies by increasing its
investment in energy research and development.
But clean energy technologies are not of much
use if they aren’t integrated swiftly and broadly
into our economy. Public policy can play a
crucial role in making that technological
transition happen.
The first step is for America to set specific,
ambitious goals for its energy future. The New
Energy Future platform represents just such a set
of goals, calling on America to:
• Reduce our dependence on oil by saving
one-third of the oil we use today by 2025 (7
million barrels per day).
• Harness clean, renewable, homegrown
energy sources like wind, solar and farmbased
bio-fuels for at least a quarter of all
energy needs by 2025.
• Save energy with high performance homes,
buildings and appliances so that by 2025
we use 10 percent less energy than we do
today.
• Invest in a New Energy Future by
committing $30 billion over the next 10
years to the New Energy for America
Initiative, thus tripling research and
development funding for the energy-saving
and renewable energy technologies we need
to achieve these goals.
The next step is for America to adopt a suite of
public policies sufficient to achieve those goals.
A comprehensive list of policy options is beyond
the scope of this report, but the following
policies would represent a strong first step:
• Require utilities to meet growing energy
needs through energy efficiency
improvements before building new power
plants.
• Expand and invest in energy efficiency
programs to help homeowners and
businesses install the latest technologies in
their homes and businesses.
• Eliminate obstacles to the use of combined
heat and power (CHP), which would
dramatically improve opportunities for
industrial and commercial energy
efficiency.
Oil Savings
• Increase fuel economy standards for cars,
light trucks and SUVs to 45 miles per
gallon over the next decade and a half and
set strong fuel economy standards for
heavy-duty trucks.
• Set goals for the use of plant-based fuels
like ethanol and biodiesel and enact
policies that ensure that those fuels are
developed cleanly and sustainably.
• Invest in expanded and improved public
transit service, promote “smart growth”
practices that reduce the need for driving,
and encourage other transportation choices
like telecommuting, carpooling, biking and
walking.
Renewable Energy
• Enact a national renewable energy
standard, similar to those already in place
in 20 states, that would require a minimum
percentage of the nation’s electricity to
come from renewable sources.
• Increase research and development funding
to develop the next generation of renewable
energy technologies.
• Provide consistent, long-term tax incentives
for the installation of solar panels and other
forms of renewable energy.
• Require utilities to prioritize renewable
energy development over the construction
of conventional power plants to satisfy
electricity demand.
Energy Efficiency in Homes, Business and
Industry
• Set strong energy efficiency standards for
household and commercial appliances.
• Strengthen residential and commercial
building codes and ensure that they are
adequately enforced.
The Road to a New Energy Future 29
Notes
1 For a current list of endorsers of the New Energy Future platform, visit
www.uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=27646.
2 This goal reflects a target set by the bi-partisan Set America Free coalition, www.setamericafree.org.
3 This goal reflects a target set by the bi-partisan 25x’25 coalition, www.25x25.org.
4 This goal is reflective of a larger goal for investment in clean energy technologies promoted by the Apollo
Alliance, www.apolloalliance.org.
5 U.S. PIRG Education Fund, A New Energy Future: The Benefits of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for
Cutting America’s Use of Fossil Fuels, Fall 2006.
6 Ibid.
7 For a current list of endorsers of the New Energy Future platform, visit
http://uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=27646
8 This goal reflects a target set by the bi-partisan Set America Free coalition, www.setamericafree.org.
9 This goal reflects a target set by the bi-partisan 25x’25 coalition, www.25x25.org.
10 This goal is reflective of a larger goal for investment in clean energy technologies promoted by the Apollo
Alliance, www.apolloalliance.org.
11 See note 5.
12 Sources: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2001 Residential Energy
Consumption Survey Consumption and Expenditures Fuel Tables, downloaded from
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/byfuels/2001/byfuels_2001.html; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration, 1999 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary End-Use
Consumption Estimates, downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/enduse_consumption/intro.htm, 22
May 2006.
13 Martin Schweitzer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Estimating the National Effects of the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program with State-Level Data: A Metaevaluation Using Studies from 1993 to
2005, September 2005.
14 Jennifer Thorne, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Residential Retrofits: Directions in
Market Transformation, December 2003.
15 Based on American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings:
Condensed Online Version, downloaded from www.aceee.org/consumerguide/mostenef.htm, 22 May 2006.
16
Based on U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2001 Residential Energy
Consumption Survey, Table HC3-1a.
17
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, U.S. Energy Department Proposes New Efficiency Standards
for Home Furnaces (press release), 6 October 2006.
18 Building Codes Assistance Project, Code Status, downloaded from www.bcap-energy.org/code_status.php, 2
October 2006.
19
William Prindle, et al., American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Energy Efficiency’s Next
Generation: Innovation on the State Level, November 2003.
20
Total number from Joe Loper, et al., Alliance to Save Energy, Building on Success: Policies to Reduce Energy
Waste in Buildings, July 2005; comparison based on U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration, Annual Energy Review 2005, 27 January 2006, comparison based on primary energy, includes
electricity losses.
21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy, What Are ENERGY STAR
Qualified New Homes?, downloaded from www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.hm_earn_star, 2
October 2006.
22 See note 12.
30 Notes
23 Residential savings: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Guide to Home Energy
Savings: Condensed Online Version, downloaded from www.aceee.org/consumerguide/mostenef.htm, 22 May
2006; Commercial savings: Greenbiz.com, “U.S. Manufacturers Reach Landmark Agreement on Air
Conditioner Efficiency Standards,” 15 November 2004.
24 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Heat Island Group: Cool Roofs, downloaded from
eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/CoolRoofs/, 2 October 2006.
25 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2001 Residential Energy Consumption
Survey: Consumption and Expenditures Fuel Tables, downloaded from
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/ce_pdf/enduse/ce1-1c_climate2001.pdf, 2 October 2006.
26 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumers Guide to Home Energy Savings: Condensed
Online Edition: Water Heating, updated September 2006.
27
Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Renewable Energy Fact Sheet: Solar Water Heating: Using the Sun’s
Energy to Heat Water, May 2006.
28 See note 25.
29 Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, Energy Research at DOE:
Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000, National Academies Press, 2001.
30 Based on American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings:
Condensed Online Version, downloaded from www.aceee.org/consumerguide/mostenef.htm, 22 May 2006.
31 J. P. Ross, Alan Meier, Whole-House Measurements of Standby Power Consumption, 2000.
32 Ibid.
33 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential: End-Use Consumption of
Electricity 2001, downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html, 10
October 2006.
34 Howard Geller, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Compact Fluorescent Lighting,
downloaded from www.aceee.org/press/op-eds/op-ed1.htm, 10 October 2006.
35 Residential net energy consumption for California and the United States was obtained from U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, State Energy Consumption, Price and Expenditures
Estimates database, downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds_updates.html, 2 October 2006.
Population estimates for California obtained from California Department of Finance, Demographic
Research Unit, California Population Estimates, with Components of Change and Crude Rates, July 1, 1900-2005,
March 2006. U.S. population estimate from U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States 2006,
downloaded from www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/, 10 October 2006.
36 Based on multiplying U.S. per capita residential net energy consumption in 1975 by the percentage
reduction in per-capita residential net energy consumption in California from 1975 to 2002 per sources
described in footnote 35.
37 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Near-Zero-Energy Buildings Blessing to Owners, Environment (press release), 11
August 2004.
38 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2005, 27 January
2006.
39 Jennifer Thorne Amman and Eric Mendelsohn, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Comprehensive Commercial Retrofit Programs: A Review of Activity and Opportunities, April 2005.
40
Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance to Save Energy Recognizes Nation’s Largest Private Electricity User – Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. – For Commitment to Energy Efficiency (press release), 6 September 2006.
41 Steven Nadel, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Saving Lighting Energy in Commercial
Buildings, downloaded from www.aceee.org/press/op-eds/op-ed5.htm, 3 October 2006.
42 Environment California Research & Policy Center, Greening the Bottom Line: California Companies Save
Money by Reducing Global Warming Pollution, August 2006.
43 70 to 90 percent from U.S. Combined Heat and Power Association, CHP Basics, downloaded from
uschpa.admgt.com/CHPbasics.htm, 25 May 2006; 33 percent from U.S. Department of Energy and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United
States, July 2000.
The Road to a New Energy Future 31
44 Industrial: Resource Dynamics Corporation, Cooling, Heating, and Power for Industry: A Market Assessment,
prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, August 2003; Commercial
and institutional: ONSITE SYCOM Energy Corporation, The Market and Technical Potential for Combined Heat
and Power in the Commercial/Institutional Sector, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, January 2000.
45 1 percent based on comparison of potential levels above with U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration, Electric Power Annual with Data for 2004, November 2005.
46 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Energy-Efficient Motor Systems: A Handbook on
Technology, Program and Policy Opportunities, 2 nd Edition (online summary), downloaded from
www.aceee.org/motors/mtrbk.htm, 3 October 2006.
47 R. Neal Elliott, Therese Langer, Steven Nadel, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Reducing Oil Use through Energy Efficiency: Opportunities Beyond Cars and Light Trucks, January 2006.
48 Ibid.
49 Electric Power Research Institute, “Save Industrial Customers Millions by Optimizing Energy and Water
Use,” Value & Vision, November 1999.
50
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sector Strategies Performance Report 2006, March 2006.
51 American Institute of Architects, Sustainability at the AIA, downloaded from www.aia.org/sustainability, 6
October 2006.
52 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2005, 27 January
2006.
53 Based on U.S. EPA adjusted fuel economy estimates from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-
Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2006, July 2006.
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid.
56 National Research Council, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Effectiveness and Impact of
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, National Academy Press, 2002.
57 Union of Concerned Scientists, National Academies National Research Council Report on: Effectiveness and
Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, downloaded from
www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_pickups_suvs/nas-report-cafe-effectiveness-and-impact.html, 6 October
2006.
58 Ibid.
59 Union of Concerned Scientists, Hybrid Watchdog: Hybrids’ Contribution to Oil Savings, downloaded from
www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-watchdog-hybrid-oil-savings.html, 6 October 2006.
60 Hybrid cars.com, Sales Numbers, downloaded from www.hybridcars.com/sales-numbers.html, 6 October
2006.
61 See, for example, David Friedman, Union of Concerned Scientists, A New Road: The Technology and
Potential of Hybrid Vehicles, January 2003; Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America, 50 by 2030: Why
$3.00 Gasoline Makes the 50 Mile per Gallon Car Feasible, Affordable and Economic, May 2006.
62 Stacy C. Davis, Susan W. Diegel, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition
25, 2006.
63
Therese Langer, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Energy Savings Through Increased Fuel
Economy for Heavy-Duty Trucks, prepared for the National Commission on Energy Policy, 11 February 2004.
64
Vehicle-miles traveled data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Highway Statistics, Summary to 1995 and 2004 editions. Total light-duty vehicle-miles traveled based on
adding VMT of passenger cars with those of other 2-axle, 4-wheel vehicles in the Highway Statistics reports.
U.S. population for computation of per-capita VMT obtained from U.S. Census Bureau, National Population
Estimates: Annual Estimates of the Population by Sex and Five-Year Age Groups for the United States: April 1, 2000 to
July 1, 2005, downloaded from www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2005-sa.html, 8 September
2006 (for 2004) and U.S. Census Bureau, Population and Housing Unit Counts: United States Summary,
downloaded from www.census.gov/population/censusdata/table-16.pdf, 8 September 2006.
65
Based on comparison of projected light-duty vehicle miles traveled and U.S. population from U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, February 2006.
32 Notes
66 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Volume Trends, December
2005. Slowest rate of increase since 1980 from: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Annual Vehicle-Miles of Travel, downloaded from
www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/graph1.htm, 20 March 2006.
67 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Volume Trends—July 2006.
68 D.L. Schrank, T.J. Lomax, Texas Transportation Institute, The 2005 Urban Mobility Report, May 2005.
69 Ibid.
70 See Elizabeth Ridlington, Gigi Kellett, MaryPIRG Foundation, Rail Transit Works: Light Rail Success Stories
from Across the Country, Spring 2003.
71 American Public Transportation Association, Light Rail Transit Ridership Report – Second Quarter 2006, 19
September 2006.
72 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2004, 2006.
73
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 2004 National Transit Summaries and
Trends, undated. Comparison is based on summing operating assistance from state, federal and local sources
(not including “other” sources or fare revenue), plus capital expenditures.
74 Based on U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Indicators of
Energy Intensity in the United States, Transportation Sector trends data, downloaded from
intensityindicators.pnl.gov/trend_data.stm, 17 July 2006.
75 Alexander E. Farrell, et al., “Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals,” Science,
311:516-519, 27 January 2006.
76 Renewable Fuels Association, Industry Statistics, downloaded from www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/,
6 October 2006.
77 Renewable Fuels Association, Ethanol Biorefinery Locations, downloaded from
www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/, 6 October 2006.
78 Based on a growth path for cellulosic biofuels from Nathanael Greene, et al., Growing Energy: How Biofuels
Can Help End America’s Oil Dependence, December 2004.
79 Assuming annual production of about 13.8 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2025, based on a growth
path for cellulosic biofuels from Nathanael Greene, et al., Growing Energy: How Biofuels Can Help End
America’s Oil Dependence, December 2004.
80 National Biodiesel Board, Estimated U.S. Biodiesel Production, downloaded from
www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/Production_Graph_Slide.pdf, 6 October 2006.
81 K. Shaine Tyson, et al., National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Biomass Oil Analysis: Research Needs and
Recommendations, June 2004.
82 Government of Canada, BioBasics: Biopolymers and Bioplastics, downloaded from
www.biobasics.gc.ca/english/View.asp?x=790, 6 October 2006.
83 Government of Canada, BioBasics: Biochemicals, downloaded from
www.biobasics.gc.ca/english/View.asp?x=789, 6 October 2006.
84
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, What Is a Biorefinery?, downloaded from
www.nrel.gov/biomass/biorefinery.html?print, 8 September 2006.
85 Biomass Technical Advisory Committee, Vision for Bioenergy & Biobased Products in the United States, October
2002.
86
See note 52.
87
See note 5.
88
James Kleisch and Therese Langer, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Plug-In Hybrids: An
Environmental and Economic Performance Outlook, September 2006.
89 Honda: Honda, Honda Demonstrates the FCX Concept Vehicle (press release), 25 September 2006; GM:
Chevrolet to Launch World’s Largest Fuel Cell Vehicle Fleet (press release), 17 September 2006.
90
D.L. Elliott and M.N. Schwartz, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Wind Energy Potential in the United States,
September 1993.
91 Walt Musial, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Offshore Wind Energy Potential for the United States,
PowerPoint presentation to the Wind Powering America Annual State Summit, 19 May 2005.
The Road to a New Energy Future 33
92 90 percent: American Wind Energy Association, The Economics of Wind Energy, February 2005. For one
comparison of energy costs among future sources of electricity generation see U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, February 2006.
93 American Wind Energy Association, U.S. Wind Energy Installations Reach New Milestone (press release), 14
August 2006.
94 BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2006, June 2006.
95 Ibid.
96 Ibid.
97 American Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy Projects Throughout the United States, downloaded from
www.awea.org/projects/, 5 October 2006.
98 M. Milligan, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Tackling Climate Change in the United States: The
Potential Contribution from Wind Power (preprint copy), July 2006.
99 Denmark currently receives 16% of its electricity from wind power, Spain receives 8%, and Germany
receives 5%. Source: BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2006, June 2006.
100
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Learning About PV: The
Myths of Solar Electricity, downloaded from www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html#1, 20 March 2005.
101 Solarbuzz, Fast Solar Energy Facts, downloaded from www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsIndustry.htm, 8
September 2006.
102 Our Solar Power Future: The U.S. Photovoltaics Industry Roadmap through 2030 and Beyond, September 2004.
103 Based on three recently announced concentrating solar projects: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, California Utility to Buy 500 Megawatts of Solar Thermal Power, 16
August 2006; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Solargenix
Breaks Ground on Large Solar Power Plant in Nevada, 15 February 2006; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, California Approves Contract for 500-Megawatt Solar Facility, 9
November 2005.
104 See note 94.
105 Ibid.
106 California Public Utilities Commission, PUC Creates Groundbreaking Solar Energy Program (press release), 12
January 2006.
107 See note 52.
108 Biomass Technical Advisory Committee, Vision for Bioenergy & Biobased Products in the United States,
October 2002.
109 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Geothermal Power Plants
Planned for Idaho, Oregon, and California, 2 August 2006.
110
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, How an Enhanced
Geothermal System Works, downloaded from www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_animation.html
111 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Geothermal Heat Pumps, downloaded
from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/heatpumps/heatpumps.html, 5 October 2006.
112 Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium, GeoExchange Heating and Cooling Systems: Fascinating Facts, January
2006.
113 See note 52.
114
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Ocean Topics, downloaded
from www.eere.energy.gov/RE/ocean.html, 5 October 2006.
115
Verdant Power, Next Generation/Unconventional Hydropower, PowerPoint presentation to Renewable Energy
Modeling Workshop on Hydroelectric Power, 10 May 2005.
116
New Jersey: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, New Wave
Energy Prototypes Deployed in Hawaii and New Jersey, 23 November 2005; Oregon: Lori Tobias, “State Rides a
New Wave in Energy Alternatives,” The Oregonian, 4 September 2006.
117 Heather Timmons, “Energy from the Restless Sea,” New York Times, 3 August 2006.
118
Dennis Hoey, “Tidal Energy, Fish Habitat at Odds in Debate,” Kennebec Journal, 24 July 2006.
34 Notes
119 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, Papers
Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development, November 1985.
120 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Energy Efficiency Research, Development, and Deployment:
Why is Federal Support Necessary?, downloaded from www.aceee.org/energy/rdd.pdf, 10 October 2006.
121 Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, Energy Research at DOE:
Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000, National Academies Press, 2001.
122 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Research and Development
Advances in Concentrating Solar Power, downloaded from www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/research.htm, 10
October 2006.
123 Ibid.
124 See note 103.
125 See note 122.
126
Daniel Kammen and Gregory Nemet, Reversing the Incredible Shrinking R&D Budget, Fall 2005,
www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/comments/Kammen-2.pdf
127 Fred Sissine, Congressional Research Service, Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget, and Electricity Production
Issues, updated 25 May 2006.
128 Fred Sissine, Congressional Research Service, Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity
Conservation Issues, updated 25 May 2006.
129 Fred Sissine, Congressional Research Service, Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget, and Electricity Production
Issues, updated 25 May 2006; Fred Sissine, Congressional Research Service, Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil
Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues, updated 25 May 2006.
130 Molly Henneberg and Melissa Drosjack, “Bush to Tour Government Alternative Energy Research Lab,”
Foxnews.com, 21 February 2006, downloaded from
www.apolloalliance.org/apollo_in_the_news/archived_news_articles/2006/2_21_06_foxnews.cfm, 10
October 2006.
131 Jack Doyle, Taken for a Ride: Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution, Four Walls Eight Windows, New
York, 2000, 390.
The Road to a New Energy Future 35
Change language